Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

Does anybody remember the Falkland War. ?Remember how the Us Navy Dept was talking up about how Aluminum ships wouldnt fare well in a real shootem up war. We had a chance to test the theory abount aluminum burning. There was a Brit Ship, the Scofield?? it got nailed by an Exocet missile and sank. It didnt sink from the missile, it sank because the Aluminum hull caught fire and they couldnt put it out.

I wonder how much Aluminum is in the non structural framing of a modern building?(hint-a lot!). I also believe that the planes were aluminum bodied . Did the "eminent" scientists who want the spotlight on this matter consider the amount of sheet aluminum is in a 737 or a WTC ?
You dont need thermite, aluminum (if ignited in, like, a fire above its melting point ) burns almost like magnesium and the heat generated as the Al oxidzes.

Im gonna keep repeating this fact. Weve already caught the Conspiracy theorists in one lie (about the jimmied seismic data) what else are they lying about?
Why hasnt anyone investigated these conspiracy freaks and the shill scientists. Whats their motives? Are they just doin this for the footlight time and a TV special?

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

don't forget these quacks.

Yep ... quacks come in all forms.

0 Replies

Like lawyers

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

no, well just scanned it. Official US govt report I believe.

how did a mixture of kerosene and air produce temperatures that could actually melt steel?

I studied metallurgy at Sheffield University more years ago than I care to recall.

Ah Steve,

Don't you know that we are supposed to accept the "official goverment document" as the final and total truth. This coming from an administration which has stretched lying to the fifth dimension!

Note that oralloy posted "No, it is because all the experts have gone over the data and have reached a consensus on how it happened, and they have released their conclusions to the public along with all the evidence."

All the experts?? Now there's an answer for you. The experts that we have presented don't count, just the ones that produce what this administration want you to hear.

What a sad state our country is in when the dumbed down portion of the population demand that we accept everything the government says without question............ well at least when the government is controlled by a certain party!

Should I even bother to ask when will the lies told by this administration reach the impeachable stage with these jokers?

Remember how they screeched at the top of their lungs when President Clinton lied about his private life...... "It's not the sex, it's the lying" ?!

The hypocrisy knows no bounds. We have a guy squatting in the oval office who has knowingly broken the law, brags that he will continue to do so and has told so many lies that even some of the repugs are starting to cringe every time he opens his lying mouth.

And this is the guy we are supposed to believe allowed the truth to be told about 9-11?? That he signed off on the inside job??

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v737/Magginkat/LaughingDog.gif

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

There was a Brit Ship, the Scofield??

" The Sheffield

One month earlier HMS Sheffield, a modern computerised Type-42 destroyer, had been returning to Portsmouth from a patrol in the Arabian Gulf, her crew looking forward to some well earned R & R.

She was the second ship to bear the name. The first was a 591ft Southampton Class cruiser that had helped sink the Bismark in WW2, and had a proud battle history. When decommissioned in '67, many of the stainless steel fittings (presented by Sheffield companies, distinct from normal brass fittings) that had given the ship the nickname "Shiny Sheff" were added to the new Sheffield, enduring the name and keeping the distinction.

The call to join the Task Force came within hours of the Argentinean invasion of the islands, and when the crew were just four days from Portsmouth. Some of the crew would never see home again. "

0 Replies

Not to forget that the Sheffield was accidentally attacked by torpedo planes from HMS Ark Royal, but she escaped unscathedduring, while helping - as part of H-fleet - on the search for the Bismarck.

Quote:

From July 1944 through May 1945, Sheffield underwent an extensive refit at Boston, Massachusetts. In the postwar period she was stationed in the Mediterranean. Decommissioned in 1959, she was broken up at Faslane in 1967.

0 Replies

Thanks Walter.

Maggin/Nimh. I try to keep an open mind on this. The circumstances surrounding the collapse of the buildings are puzzling. But some while back I saw a tv programme which seemed convincing at the time. That pointed to poorly applied insulation on structural steel which exposed it to the full heat of the fire. This allowed the steel joists to deform and a floor collapse which brought the full weight of the building down onto the floor below causing it in turn to fail. So the whole building came down like a pack of cards. But I had no idea until recently that molten iron had been found in the wreckage...I cant think of any explanation for this which fits the "standard" model of the collapse.

But leaving that aside, and accepting that the plane impact and the subsquent fire did cause the collapse, how is it possible to explain the collapse of WTC7 building?

No plane hit it. It substained only minor fire damage, yet several hours after the planes hit the other buildings, it fell down! What caused this building to fail? And why did the 911 commission report never even address this question? I could accept that the building was declared unsafe and therefore delibrately "pulled"...but if that is the case it MUST be common knowledge. And yet my understanding is that WTC7 collapsed as a result of the attack on the twin towers.

If there is a straighforward explanation for WTC7 collapse, that would go a long way to extinguish more general conspiracy theories as far as I'm concerned.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Thanks Walter.

Maggin/Nimh. I try to keep an open mind on this. The circumstances surrounding the collapse of the buildings are puzzling. But some while back I saw a tv programme which seemed convincing at the time. That pointed to poorly applied insulation on structural steel which exposed it to the full heat of the fire. This allowed the steel joists to deform and a floor collapse which brought the full weight of the building down onto the floor below causing it in turn to fail. So the whole building came down like a pack of cards. But I had no idea until recently that molten iron had been found in the wreckage...I cant think of any explanation for this which fits the "standard" model of the collapse.

But leaving that aside, and accepting that the plane impact and the subsquent fire did cause the collapse, how is it possible to explain the collapse of WTC7 building?

No plane hit it. It substained only minor fire damage, yet several hours after the planes hit the other buildings, it fell down! What caused this building to fail? And why did the 911 commission report never even address this question? I could accept that the building was declared unsafe and therefore delibrately "pulled"...but if that is the case it MUST be common knowledge. And yet my understanding is that WTC7 collapsed as a result of the attack on the twin towers.

If there is a straighforward explanation for WTC7 collapse, that would go a long way to extinguish more general conspiracy theories as far as I'm concerned.

There's only one problem with that report.... Most of the fuel burned off in the giant fireballs seen outside the WTC for starters. What is seen later is mostly smoke.

Secondly, even if the insulation had burned off the temperature of burning Kerosene, (jet fuel), would never burn hot enough to melt a steel beam. If, by some freak of nature, it did burn hot enough on one or two floors to weaken the beams, notice that no one explains how all those floors underneath collapsed.

I can see a floor or two collapsing but not 110! NO.... one or two floors collapsing would NOT bring down the full weight of the building. Most of the weight of the building was under the fire.

Yep.... Building 7 is the key that says it was deliberately bombed! It imploded upon itself just like the two towers something that has never happened before & has not happened since.

It was a miracle that gave junior his "trifecta", his :Pearl Harbor" and it was all just an amazing coincidence.

It must be that god of his providing exactly what he needed even when it defied every law of physics and all other sciences! The only thing amazing to me is how most of the country just shrugged it off and went about their daily lives, no questions asked after the "official" explanation.

It was Bin Laden and that was that!

Sorry I am not ready to trade in my brain to george bu$h and his lying, cheating, stealing, murdering thugs.

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

..Building 7 is the key ...

OK well lets just focus on WTC7. What do others say about why it fell? Was it deliberately "pulled"?...that could be quite legitimate. A 47 storey building doesnt just collapse without reason. What is the "official" explanation? There must be some reason that someone somewhere has given. Or are we asked to believe the building was so shocked when it saw what happened to its sisters that it fainted?

A reason please from anyone about WTC7 collapse...and Nimh if there is a reason in the 911 report, my apologies...what was it?

0 Replies

Steve, I think that " the building was so shocked when it saw what happened to it's sister that it fainted", is a better answer than any I have seen & probably better than any you will ever get from the bu$h admin.

Come to think of it, I haven't seen and discussion on bldg 7 except the questions we ask here.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Magginkat wrote:
..Building 7 is the key ...
OK well lets just focus on WTC7. What do others say about why it fell? Was it deliberately "pulled"?...that could be quite legitimate. A 47 storey building doesnt just collapse without reason. What is the "official" explanation? There must be some reason that someone somewhere has given. Or are we asked to believe the building was so shocked when it saw what happened to its sisters that it fainted?

A reason please from anyone about WTC7 collapse...and Nimh if there is a reason in the 911 report, my apologies...what was it?

From the Popular Mechanics site:

Quote:

WTC 7 Collapse

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

That article was published a year ago.

0 Replies

The point about the Sheffield was that it burned. The aluminum skin set up a tremendous oxidation reaction. Here we are being fed some crap about thermite (or a variant that contains ANFO) and we just latch onto that as "proof of a conspiracy"
All along weve had the materials balance and conditions for the combustion of . Unless magginkat conveniently misses the data, the buildings WTC1 and 2 , were burning continuouisly till they fell, and the collapses were both propogated at the points where the planes hit.(DID we instruct thepilots to steer to those points because we conveniently planted cutter charges and air knives at those points.
Also, I will keep dwelling on this point, THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS LIED THROUGH ONE OF THEIR "EXPERTS" . the matter of the seismic record was all bullshit and actual doctoring of the traces. Where else are they lying.

Forensic evidence means that one looks at everything and then pares away that which is improbable. You conspiracists seem to be starting with a conclusion and are trying to substantiate it through bad evidence and dishonest reporting.

Wanna buy some swampland magginkat?

0 Replies

Maggs

But remember you are making an extraordinary claim here. No less than the American government waging war against the American people...is this really likely? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and so far I've not seen enough.

Moreover it seems there is one factor that the conspiracy theorists overlook and that is leaks.

If for the sake of argument, we start from the position of the US govt. actually planning and implementing these attacks, it would entail many people in the military, secret services, politicians, flight controllers, etc etc. all being "in" on the secret. Dont you think that at least some of these people, when they saw the aftermath of what they had done to their fellow citizens, might have felt a little guilty? Might in fact have wanted to blow the whistle on the whole conspiracy and indentify the chief culprits? How could any government in todays world of communications hope to keep all those people silent about the most outrageous act of terrorism? There is an expression "Truth will out". It would take a mighty will indeed to keep a 911 conspiracy bottled up, if thats what it was.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

nimh wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
oralloy wrote:
They didn't have time to figure things out and stop the planes before they crashed.

The timing of the response is described in detail here:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Scroll down to "1.2 IMPROVISING A HOMELAND DEFENSE"

So...

1. there was not enough time
2. they couldnt find them (in a big sky ) [..]

there was (plenty of time)
they could (find them...easily) [..]

isnt that the truth?

Steve, did you read Oralloy's link at all?

I found it to answer your questions in great detail - and it doesnt give any justification for your conclusions.

no, well just scanned it. Official US govt report I believe.

how did a mixture of kerosene and air produce temperatures that could actually melt steel?

I studied metallurgy at Sheffield University more years ago than I care to recall.

The other posts have been answering those questions, I dont know much about that.

But I was referring to your other points, the ones I quoted, about there having been "plenty of time" to stop the planes before they crashed, and how they could have found those planes "easily".

0 Replies

ok thanks Tico at least that is a reason, better than no reason.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

ok thanks Tico at least that is a reason, better than no reason.

I'm not sure about that Steve,

Bldg 7 was about a block away from the two towers and since they did not fall sideways but imploded, how did 7 get the damage Tico describes?!!

As for your comment, "But remember you are making an extraordinary claim here. No less than the American government waging war against the American people...is this really likely? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and so far I've not seen enough."
Did you forget Operation Northwoods? The U.S. governement did exactly that. JFK put a stop to the insanity at that time. This time the insane were in charge!!

0 Replies

New Yorkers Challenge NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer - Protest

March 15, 2006

Attention New Yorkers! Please be advised of the following, and forward to your own lists for the fullest participation possible.

DATE: Wed., March 22nd, 2006
TIME: 12 pm - 2 pm
LOCATION: 120 Broadway (south of Fulton St. - The building belongs to Silverstein Properties!)

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS:
2 pm demonstration at Ground Zero
4 pm demonstration at Wall St. & Broadway to engage the financial district

In November of 2004, an independent inquiry into the events of 9/11 titled "Citizens' Complaint & Petition" was submitted to Eliot Spitzer's office. His deputy, William Casey, personally received it. In public events Mr. Spitzer was asked for a response to this Complaint, which he acknowledged knowing about. To this day there has been no response.

Now earlier this month, in special Congressional hearings on Able Danger we see more cause for suspicion. Able Danger was a Pentagon terrorist tracking operation. News broke last summer with whistleblowers reporting they knew about Mohamed Atta in early 2000, but experienced suppression of their testimony by the 9/11 Commission. Here is another scenario where Eliot Spitzer's behavior raises more red flags which should outrage all Americans. He barred his top aide, Deputy Attorney General Dietrich Snell, from testifying at these hearings which occurred after 248 Congresspersons petitioned the Pentagon.

In the 2004 book by five-time Emmy award-winning journalist Peter Lance called Cover Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror, he makes a damning statement about Dietrich Snell. "Under objective circumstances, Snell would have made an important witness before the Commission. But in the heavily-conflicted world of the Commission staff, he was hired to be one of its senior attorneys and team leaders." According to Peter Lance, Dietrich Snell "was one of the fixers, hired early on to sanitize the Commission's final report."

To further illustrate the nature of this suspicious act by the top NY law enforcement officer, according to February 15th's New York Post, "Attorney General Eliot Spitzer personally intervened with a congressional panel to get a top aide out of testifying at an explosive hearing on pre-9/11 intelligence failures... the House Armed Services Committee had requested testimony of Deputy Attorney General Dietrich Snell -- a former top investigator with the 9/11 commission -- at a hearing today on 'Able Danger'."

How could it be that Spitzer, who has won accolades for his successful legal actions against Wall St. financial institutions engaging in fraud, has acted to suppress information that would reveal what happened on 9/11, rather than bringing the full power of his office to investigate and expose every detail leading to the truth of what happened that horrific day?

We feel strongly he's guilty of Obstruction of Justice. We feel he is complicit to treason for actual government complicity for the crimes of 9/11, for which there is overwhelming evidence. He is also complicit to high scale fraud for not cooperating with the Able Danger investigation as well as not exposing the wholesale cover-up known as the 9/11 Commission Report. By his inaction, Spitzer showed whose side he is on.

Eliot Spitzer does not represent the people of New York or anyone other than the oligarchy. The evidence is, he represents the entrenched military/industrial/ congressional machine that is reaping billions of dollars in war profits and homeland security contracts. The terror economy is winning, while Americans pay the bill with treasure and lives, and functional democracy has become a myth.

But here's the reality. In August of 2004, according to a Zogby Poll, 66% of the people of New York State wanted their Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to launch a real investigation into 9/11. Despite his inaction, it only stands to reason that now an even greater number of New Yorkers recognize that the lies of Iraq, torture, wiretapping, Katrina, to name a few, underscore the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that we have been deceived about 9/11. The truth won't wait forever. It's time to send a strong signal -- Americans want truth and accountability for the crimes of 9/11.

0 Replies

I have seen through various accounts that the Popular Mechanics article, while well written, employed the same officials for it's investigation into debunking the myths. The Hearst ownership of Popular Mechanics has been shown to have been on the same "side" as the Bushies.
I can't find the link at the moment, but I do recall hearing that using them as an authoratative source on 9/11 is about as credible as using those fronted by the Bush administration.

I'd be curious to learn more about the unusual put options placed on the specific airlines that were chosen to hit the targets, and the insurance claim taken out on the WTC by Silverstein shortly prior to the attack....as well as the satellite building collapse of 7.

0 Replies

(Here you go candidone Very Happy

-amigo)

Bell Hosts Popular Mechanics
Mag 911 Debunker
From Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press, Washington, D.C.
3-5-5

To: Mr. Art Bell Coast to Coast Radio Date: March 4, 2005

Re: Upcoming Radio Interview with 9/11 Propagandist Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, on Saturday, March 5, 2005

Dear Mr. Bell,

I see that you will interview Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old "senior researcher" of Popular Mechanics and his research and role in producing the current cover story "Debunking the Lies of 9/11," on your show tomorrow night, Saturday, March 5.

As your Coast to Coast network website says about the upcoming Art Bell show: "Research editor for Popular Mechanics magazine, Ben Chertoff, will discuss the 16 most prevalent claims made by conspiratorial theorists regarding 9/11 and how the staff of Popular Mechanics debunked each of them."

COUSIN OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF

Because Benjamin Chertoff is a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new head of the Dept. of Homeland Security, a massive bureaucratic security agency created as a result of 9/11, I'd like to ask you a few questions:

Do you condone the flagrant and undemocratic nepotism of the Bush administration, for example this Chertoff connection, whereby a senior government official's cousin has written a propaganda piece supporting the government's seriously flawed and incomplete investigation of the events of 9/11?

This is the kind of thing that Saddam Hussein was known for. This is not very American and at all honest journalism.

Will you ask Ben Chertoff about the journalistic ethics practiced by Hearst Corp. and Popular Mechanics in which a cousin of the "homeland security" czar has produced a major propaganda piece in Popular Mechanics which clearly seeks to discredit the citizens' 9/11 investigation and calls serious researchers like myself, Eric Hufschmid, and Dave von Kleist - liars and extremists?

Will you ask Ben, Popular Mechanics "senior researcher" about how "secondary fires" i.e. burning office furniture, supplies and paper, "induced the collapse" of the twin towers, as the FEMA-Building Performance Study conducted by a team headed by Dr. Gene Corely during ONE WEEK, concluded - including the complete collapse of the towers' 47 central columns? (Source: Executive Summary by Gene Corley, FEMA-BPS 2002)

I would advise you to ask him why the Windsor Building in Madrid endured a 24-hour inferno with temperatures of 1,000 Celsius, without collapsing, on Feb. 12-13, 2005.

Will you, on coast-to-coast radio ask Ben about his relationship with his cousin Michael Chertoff. And will you also ask about Mike's dual-national status as an Israeli national by virtue of the fact that his mother was the first hostess with Israel's El Al airlines and a Mossad operative in 1949-1950 during Operation Magic Carpet?

Tip: Ben's mom told me that Ben is a "cousin" of Michael Chertoff, the Sec. of DHS. Ben's mom, Judy Dargan, can be reached in Pelham, New York, where Ben graduated from high school in 1998. Judy told me that Ben's dad is Larry Chertoff. I think he is a senior executive with the NY EPA and deals with water issues, but I have not confirmed that.

For more information about Benjamin Chertoff and his ties to Michael Chertoff - and Michael's ties to Israel - and Mossad - please read the following:

9/11 AND CHERTOFF: COUSIN WROTE 9/11 PROPAGANDA FOR PM

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=66176

CONTROLLED PRESS HIDES CHERTOFF'S ISRAELI ROOTS by C. Bollyn (AFP)

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=66175

WILL ART BELL ASK BEN CHERTOFF ABOUT HIS TIES TO DHS?

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=66177

Mr. Bell, I will be listening. If you fail to openly address and discuss these essential and troublesome facts, I will be forced to accept the conclusion that you are also part of the 9/11 cover up.

Respectfully,

Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press
Washington, D.C.
www.americanfreepress.net

Disclaimer

Email This Article

0 Replies

Excellent article Amigo,

That is interesting news about Michael Chertoff's 25 year old "expert" cousin. My guess is that this would read more correctly if it said, Chertoff's 25 yr old brain washed cousin!

The republican two faced, back stabbing, hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

But then the ability of the U.S. public to turn a blind eye also never ceases to amaze me.

0 Replies

Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know